Hunter access affects elk resource selection in the Missouri breaks, Montana

Abstract

Elk (Cervus canadensis) populations that exceed socially tolerable population levels create problems with private landowners over property damage and competition with livestock. Increasing harvest of adult female elk is the primary management tool for curtailing elk population growth and reducing elk populations. However, this tool is not effective when elk are not accessible to hunters during hunting seasons. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the effects of hunter access and other landscape factors on second‐order and third‐order elk resource selection during the archery and rifle hunting seasons in 2 populations: the Missouri River Breaks (MRB) and Larb Hills, Montana, USA. In our resource selection models, we first treated the individual elk‐year as the sampling unit to estimate individual‐level selection coefficients and second, we pooled data from all individuals to estimate population‐level selection coefficients. Second‐order population‐level selection coefficients indicated that elk in MRB and Larb Hills selected home ranges in areas with no hunter access, and hunter access was the strongest predictor of second‐order selection. Similarly, third‐order population‐level selection coefficients indicated elk in both populations selected locations within their seasonal home range with no hunter access, and the strength of selection for locations with no hunter access was stronger in the archery season than the rifle season. However, individual models revealed that although third‐order population‐level selection for locations with no hunter access was strong, only 46% of elk in the MRB selected for no hunter access during the archery season and 24% of elk selected for no hunter access during the rifle season. Additionally, the majority of all elk locations in the MRB (i.e., 68% of archery locations, 91% of rifle locations) occurred in areas accessible to hunters. These results highlight that population‐level selection coefficients may not always represent individual selection patterns, and we recommend employing a combination of population‐level and individual animal models as the basis of developing biological inferences. Even if hunter access is restricted in a relatively small geographic area within an elk population range, those areas may have a disproportionate effect on elk distributions and prevent effective harvest of female elk to maintain populations at objective levels (i.e., 1,700–2,000 elk). Working cooperatively with stakeholders to minimize elk harboring is necessary for curtailing further elk population increases and maintaining a distribution of elk across public and private lands. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

Mountain lions on the prairie: habitat selection by recolonizing mountain lions at the edge of their range

“…Thus, mountain lions in our largely undeveloped study area likely infrequently encountered humans, and when they did, were most likely to encounter them near roads. Similar to mountain lions, large herbivore prey in our study area similarly avoid areas near roads (Proffitt et al ). However, areas farthest from roads in our study area were primarily in open rangeland with little forest cover for stalking prey.…”

“…We similarly observed a positive effect of decreasing distance to water, but the response was not linear and we also observed a positive effect for areas far from water. In our study area, riparian areas near the Missouri River are associated with dense vegetation where large herbivore prey such as mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ), white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ), and elk ( Cervus canadensis ) are more abundant (Proffitt et al ). Areas far from water were typically associated with more mountainous terrain that was typically forested, and areas at intermediate distances typically represented open (i.e.…”

Efficacy of recreational hunters and marksmen for host culling to combat chronic wasting disease in reindeer

“…In some cases, hunters with reindeer on their properties fill their quotas rapidly, and herds are then left and can stay safe from hunters until the wind direction changes and they are disturbed. Similarly, private property rights severely limit access for deer hunters in the United States (Brown et al 2000, Walberg et al 2018, and both elk (Proffitt et al 2010(Proffitt et al , 2013(Proffitt et al , 2016Ranglack et al 2017) and white-tailed deer (Rhoads et al 2013) seek refuges on private land during the hunting season. There were some agreements allowing hunters to use other estates during the 2017 hunt, but this also led to interference.…”

Annual elk calf survival in a multiple carnivore system

“…We also tested the winter weather severity‐predation hypothesis, which predicts that predation risk will interact with weather conditions to increase juvenile mortality during winters with more severe weather conditions (Mech et al ). Finally, we expected that wolves would be an important mortality source for elk calves because wolf reestablishment coincided with declines in elk calf recruitment in our study area (Proffitt et al ). However, if wolves had negligible effects on elk calf survival as in other studies, then we predicted that American black bear predation would be the dominant mortality source on neonatal elk calves <30 days old, and similar to other systems without wolves or grizzly bears, that mountain lion predation would dominate elk calf mortality during the rest of the year (Johnson et al ).…”